Appeal No. 2002-0313
Application No. 09/302,106
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the answer (Paper No. 15, mailed October
2, 2001) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 26, 2001)
for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that the
rejected claims do not stand or fall together (brief, page 3).
However, Appellants have not in the arguments section of the
brief provided separate arguments for each of claims 1-4, as
required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 2001). Instead,
Appellants have merely relied on the same arguments for all these
claims. Therefore, we will consider Appellants’ claims 1-4 as
standing or falling together as one group and we will treat claim
1 as the representative claim of that group.
The focus of Appellants’ arguments appears to be the absence
of the shock-absorbing material positioned directly between the
host computer and the assembly in the prior art (brief, page 3).
Appellants assert that Gustafson, in Figure 2 and column 3, line
52, discloses that “the elastomeric layers 40 are positioned
between the clips 38 and the printed circuit board 24" whereas
“[t]he clips 38 are mounted on the circuit board” (id.).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007